Table 1

Design and quality assessment of included studies

StudyYearCountryStudy periodDesignSingle or multicentreType*No. of groupsSample size calculationBlinding methodJadad score
Graham32 1979USANRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT5NoNR1
Dutta et al 33 1983USANRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT3NoNR1
Lankisch et al 34 1986GermanyNRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT3NoNR1
Halgreen et al 35 1986DenmarkNRCross-overSinglePERT vs placebo2NoDouble3
Gouerou et al 36 1989FranceNRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT2NoNR2
Jørgensen et al 37 1991DenmarkNRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT3NoNR1
Paris38 1993FranceJune 1986 to June 1987ParallelSinglePERT vs placebo2NoDouble3
Delhaye et al 39 1996BelgiumMarch 1993 to May 1994Cross-overSinglePERT vs PERT4NoNR2
Opekun Jr et al 40 1997USANRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT vs placebo4NoSingle1
Halm et al 41 1999GermanyNRCross-overMulticentrePERT vs PERT2YesDouble4
O’Keefe et al 42 2001South AfricaNRParallelSinglePERT vs placebo2NoNR2
Domínguez-Muñoz et al 43 2005SpainNRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT3YesNot possible2
Vecht et al 44 2006NetherlandsNRCross-overSinglePERT vs PERT2NoDouble2
Safdi et al 45 2006USANRParallelMulticentrePERT vs placebo2NoDouble3
Whitcomb et al 46 2010USA/EuropeApril 2007 to August 2008ParallelMulticentrePERT vs placebo2YesDouble5
Toskes et al 47 2011USA/EuropeJanuary 2008 to March 2009Cross-overMulticentrePERT vs PERT2YesDouble3
Thorat et al 48 2012IndiaJune 2008 to May 2010ParallelMulticentrePERT vs placebo2YesDouble5
  • *Refers to comparisons of different types of PERT, different doses of the same PERT.

  • NR, not reported; PERT, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.